Ever since President Obama announced his desire to take NASA in a new direction opinions of all varieties followed. And followed in excess. Some have been supportive of the plan, arguing that the old plan was wasting tax dollars on programs that were over budget and overly complicated.
They questioned the wisdom in designing an all in one system, one that could fulfill our obligations to the International Space Station (ISS) as well as return astronauts to the Moon and eventually on to Mars. Why not build more focused machines to meet specific short term goals? Why not allow the private sector to develop low Earth orbit (LEO) craft to meet some of the space ferrying needs? This would stimulate economic activity and spawn development of new technology while defraying costs to taxpayers.
On the other hand, thinking and dreaming big has been the way of NASA for decades. It was that kind of thinking that got us to the Moon over 40 years ago. So while the Constellation Program was over budget, it represented the everything NASA has been about since Neil Armstrong first set foot on the Moon. Not to mention that taking NASA in a whole new direction means cutting programs and cutting jobs. Not exactly a desirable consequence (especially with mid-term elections on the horizon).
The next steps forward are complicated and not so clear. It appears, however, that the future will be one of compromise, and I am not so sure that is a good thing. Lockheed Martin recently reported in a June 17 interview that they could deliver the Orion Crew Module at a cost between 4.5 and 5.5 billion dollars, far less than what was expected. Of course, this would require less oversight from NASA.
And herein lies the first problem. The involvement of NASA in these projects is the result of lessons learned. Space travel is a dangerous proposition, and history shows that anything can happen, even with careful planning. Oversight is not an option, it is a necessity. I fear that once we begin to deregulate the oversight ability of NASA, we open the door to safety problems.
But perhaps my biggest concern is sacrificing practicality all together for the sake of political safety. The "scaled back" production version of the Orion module proposed by Lockheed Martin would only be used as an emergency lifeboat for astronauts aboard the ISS. If the purpose of giving NASA a new vision is to be more lean and more focused, then why are incredibly expensive projects continued that meet only small needs.
Of course the reason is politics. The politically safe move that preserves jobs, if only for a year (till after the elections), allows political operatives to appear sympathetic to their constituents. (O.k., that's a bit unfair, I am sure they genuinely concerned about their constituents, but you get my point.) But these compromises don't actually help NASA move forward on a viable path. It is only a stop gap while a political battle rages on.
Change is difficult, and jobs will be lost no matter what the final decision. But the question we should be asking, is what is the best way forward? Where do we see the space program in 10 years and how do we get there? We need to an agreement as to what NASA's goals are and how we get there. Of course, honestly answering these questions means taking the politics out of the equation, which is never easy.
So what about you; where do you see us in 10 years? 20 years? Where does NASA go from here? Fill up the comments section below with your ideas.
Comments
NASA seem to be getting ‘Constellation through the back door’ – an initial reduced-capability version as an emergency lifeboat will probably (hopefully) be followed by something closer to the original vision eventually. That will depend on a return to economic prosperity and the election of a President with a more pro-active stance than the current incumbent.
That’s not to say that Space X and similat firms will not make a useful and growing contribution providing access to LEO; but it will be a very long time before such concerns can produce the hardware for a manned mission to the Moon, let alone Mars or an asteroid.
Possibly the most exciting developments may be in propulsion, with VASIMIR and similar engines giving a tantalising vision of high-speed hyperbolic orbits, and transit times to Mars measured days rather than months. This would ameliorate so many health-related issues with spaceflight, not least exposure t high-energy cosmic radiation.
However, the current fiasco will inevitably severely erode the US’ lead in manned spaceflight – wherever you decide to go next, will the Chinese get there first?
Dan Ibekwe
Dan, John, the Senate Compromise Bill and it’s Appropriations Bill would answer your questions regarding safety and the future of NASA. I realize it is just a proposal at the moment that has to get past the House / Senate Negotiations Session that will take place prior to the Elections this fall, IF the House of Representatives can get it’s own Bill past Appropriations and voted on; which is not at all a sure thing, and that is the crux of the problem.
We have a Bill out of the Senate, that the Senate, the WH and the Commercial Space / New Space agree on; the only fly in the ointment is the smell of PORK RENDERING coming from the House of Representatives, that is holding on to the Constellation Program which is Ares 1 and Ares V and trying it’s damndest to hold back Commercial Space.
Nothing we discuss about the future of NASA and the US Human Space Flight Program BEO or Cis-Lunar is going to have any real foundation until we know the nature of the Bill that ends up on the President’s desk and signed, or there is a Continuing Resultion. It is all Speculation and Wishful Thinking. PIPE DREAMS!!!!
I can promise you this, if there is a CR, then you can kiss the US HSFP good bye for 10-20 years, it will have gone the way of the Apollo Program and the gap between it and the Shuttle. It will be the likes of SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace, Boeing and ULA that pick up the pieces and get us into Space again, there won’t be another NASA rocket / space craft for BEO / Cis-Lunar.